U.S.-Turkey Divergence on Syria (Dispatch)
Video Transcript:
Video Transcript
Fighting in Syria continues to rage between government and rebel forces as both sides are looking for more help from their foreign sponsors to give them the upper hand in the fight. This growing stalemate in Syria’s battle for Aleppo is exposing a disagreement between Turkey and the United States over Syria’s transition to a post-al Assad regime.
Over the past several days, Turkey’s palpable anxiety over the situation in Syria has come across in a number of Turkish statements and editorials. Turkey feels as though it has already absorbed a great deal of risk in backing the rebel insurgency in Syria. Large numbers of refugees are coming across the border and the growing security vacuum in Syria’s Kurdish-populated northeast is fueling Kurdish militancy in Turkey. Turkey has made no secret that it suspects an escalation of attacks in Hatay province is being encouraged by Iran and Syria as a pressure tactic against Ankara. Meanwhile, Turkey’s ruling AKP is facing flack from opposition groups like the CHP who have argued that the government’s policy on Syria has been reckless.
Turkey wants closure to this conflict, and it wants it fast. Turkey also wants to ensure that the risk it’s taking will be worth it in the end and will result in a Sunni government in Damascus that will allow Ankara to project influence in the Levant and push Iran back.
The United States shares Turkey’s interest in whittling down Iran’s regional sphere of influence, but it prefers to go about this in a much more measured way. The U.S. approach requires more time, and time is becoming very costly for Turkey.
The U.S. does not want to repeat the mistakes of its de-Baathification campaign in Iraq. It wants to maintain the regime’s military and security apparatus to avoid a broader conflict that would threaten to pull U.S. military attention back to the Middle East. A gradual weakening of al Assad’s forces as opposed to a sudden collapse would facilitate U.S. and NATO plans to secure Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles through the insertion of special operations forces.
The United States is also deeply concerned about who will end up assuming power in a post-al Assad regime. The growing presence of Islamist fighters in the rebellion is keeping the U.S. from significantly upping its support for the rebels for fear that fresh weaponry will fall into the hands of more jihadist-minded militants whose agenda is not limited to seeing the al Assad regime fall.
Turkey has spent a lot of energy in building up the Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army as the premier opposition groups to lead the transition. But U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has repeated her concerns that these opposition groups are too fragmented to present a viable alternative to the regime. In fact, when Clinton was in Turkey earlier this week, she did not even meet with SNC representatives.
The United States appears more interested in working through individuals like former military commander Manaf Tlass and former Prime Minister Riad Hijab – two high-ranking Sunni defectors who are also legacies of the Assad regime – to shape the new government.
There are also indications that the United States is open to working with Russia on the transition as part of a broader negotiation to address other sticking points with Moscow, including Russia’s support for Iran. Russia, of course, is going to be pushing an agenda to maintain as much of the regime as possible in order to safeguard its own interests in the Levant.
A continued stalemate in Syria will only exacerbate this divide between the United States and Turkey. Russia and Iran will meanwhile be doing whatever they can to exploit this rift and edge their way into a negotiation over the Syrian transition.
